“The future will belong not to those who focus on the technology alone but to those who. . . see it as one element of a wider system transformation.”

Sir Michael Barber (2013) in Foreword to Alive in the Swamp

In Alive in the Swamp:  Assessing Digital Innovations in Education (2013), Michael Fullan and Katelyn Donnelly elaborated on a push-pull phenomena that has surfaced in modern education. The “push” manifests in a rapid loss of enthusiasm among students as they progress through school systems, along with the growing dissatisfaction of teachers who want to leave the teaching profession altogether. The “pull,” which acts as a counterbalancing force, is the rapid explosion of digital innovations that are impacting education and learning. The amount of global digital information that is created and shared has grown exponentially since 2005:

1 zettabyte = 1 trillion gigabytes   SOURCE: IDC IVIEW report ‘Extracting value from chaos’. June 2011

Pedagogy and change knowledge, however, are lagging behind the rapid acceleration of technology. Fullen and Donnelly have stressed that in order to strengthen the new learning revolution, pedagogy and change knowledge will need to “step up their game” (p. 10). Technology needs to be combined with pedagogy and knowledge about system change.  In Stratosphere, Fullan (2013) used the following illustration:

Every year significant investments are being poured into technology for education. Yet how have these investments been viewed? As mere acquisitions? Or as a means of improving and changing the learning system? Where is the evidence to support the claim that digital technologies will improve the education system? In “Decoding learning: the proof, promise and potential of digital education,” Stokes (2012) has called for a shift in focus so that we’re not concentrating simply on the technology itself but on how technology can be used by students for learning. She asserted: “For too long, technology has been put above teaching and excitement has been put above evidence” (p. 63).

Fullan offered four criteria by which to assess new learning systems in Stratosphere (2013):

1.  Irresistibly engaging for students and teachers.

2. Elegantly easy to adapt and use.

3. Ubiquitous access to technology 24/7.

4. Steeped in real life problem solving.

In addition, Fullan and Donnelly have developed a comprehensive index that has a practical application. The index has three main components and nine subcomponents.   It can be used to systematically evaluate new companies, products, and school models.

Recommendation: Use the index to optimize integration of technology, pedagogy, and “systemness” (p. 26)

 References

Barber, M.  (2013).  Foreword.  Alive in the Swamp:  Assessing digital innovations in education.  NESTA.  Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/alive_in_the_swamp.pdf

Fullan, M. & Donnelly, K.  (2013).  Alive in the swamp.  Assessing digital innovations in education.  NESTA.  Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/alive_in_the_swamp.pdf

Fullan, M. (2013).  Stratosphere:  Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge.  Toronto:  Pearson Education Inc.

As early as 1983, in the Review of Educational Research, Richard Clark based an observation on the best available evidence at the time. He observed that using media to deliver instructional content was like using trucks to deliver groceries. The fact that a truck contained groceries did not influence changes in nutrition in any way. Similarly, using media as a means of instruction could not guarantee improved learning outcomes for students or advances in academic achievement. That fact still holds true today. Kathleen Stokes is the policy advisor for digital education in NESTA. In her article, “Decoding Learning: The Proof, Promise and Potential of Digital Education” (2012), a review of the NESTA publication of the same name, she reminds us that it’s the learning activity that technology enables rather than the technology itself that is key. She reports that research has been conducted on over 200 innovations to determine if the innovations are useful for learning. She expands on eight learning themes or approaches to learning that have proven to be effectively delivered through the use of various technologies:

1.  Learning from Experts: Technologies are available to help learners convert information into knowledge without taking the role of experts out of the equation.

Examples: Animations, video lectures, podcasts, video conferencing software, and collaborative projects, such as Solar Stormwatch, which allows an exchange of information between volunteers and scientists and has been headlined as a “new citizen science opportunity” (Atkinson, 2010, para 1).

2. Learning from Others: Experiential learning stresses social interaction with others. Peers play an important role in the learning process.

Examples: Representational tools that allow activities and learner achievements to be represented, scaffolding tools, and communication tools that permit collaboration at a distance. The NiCE Discussion Room in Austria has been called a way to integrate paper and digital media “to support co-located group meetings” (Haller et al., 2010, para 1).

3. Learning through Making: The range of things that can be constructed has been expanded through digital technologies.

Examples: Scratch programming language for education,NetLogo, a language for making simulations and games, 3D printing, which permits users to make 3D objects through the process called additive manufacturing (AD)

4. Learning through Exploring: Freedom to act is essential for learners, but self-regulation of actions is also required, which can be difficult to regulate in educational settings. Technology-supported exploring has not been utilized or valued within educational settings, according to Stokes.

Examples: Sugata Mitra’s experiments in self-learning (Hole-in-the-Wall), 3D simulations, which allow individuals to understand information more effectively, used in University of Illinois at Chicago’s Cyber-Commons, where users can call up stored images for 2-D and 3-D displays on the same screen.

5. Learning through Inquiry: New understanding and insights can be gained from formulating questions (hypotheses), and then going through a discovery process to test them – the essential elements of research. Framework for conducting experiments and investigations can be supported through mobile devices, simulations, and augmented reality

Examples: RoomQuake, an earthquake simulation system that can be used to detect the fault line in a classroom, iCivics, MP for a Week

6. Learning through Practicing: One of the oldest uses of technology, especially through the use of gaming. Discernment is needed to determine if games include “knowledge, skills, and learning outcomes into their design” (p. 61), which may enhance motivation but may not improve learning.

Examples: Artificial intelligence in chatbots to help practice foreign languages,Zombie Division, which can assist learners in practicing multiplication and division.

7. Learning from Assessment: Assessment has not been viewed as a candidate for innovation using technology. Yet assessment holds great promise since effective feedback helps learners to progress in areas such as formative assessment, self-assessment, and peer-assessment. More products need to be designed for learners and teachers.

Examples: Khan’s Academy’s integrated video, practice and analytics model, AssignSim, which compares a learner’s work with those of his peers and provides automatic feedback.

8. Learning in and across Settings: Stokes states that “Knowledge and understanding are deepened when applied across different locations, contexts, and activities” (p. 62). She recommends the use of recording tools, such as PDAs, cameras, GPS-enabled phones, mobile technologies.

Examples: Lifelogs, Locomatrix, and the EcoMOBILE project, which uses mobile devices to collect data integrated with augmented reality and environmental probes.

Recommendations:

• Use technologies to link and support learning themes.
• Consider the context where learning takes place.
• Use evidence-based guidance on uses of technology for learning.

References

Atkinson, N.  (2010).  New citizen science opportunity:  Solar storm watch.  Universe Today.  Retrieved from http://www.universetoday.com/57570/new-citizen-science-opportunity-solar-storm-watch/

Clark, R. E. (1983).  Reconsidering research on learning from media.  Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445 – 459.

Haller, M., Leitner, J., Seifried, T., Wallace, J. R., Scott, S. D., Richter, C., . . . Hunter, S.  (2010).  The NiCE discussion room:  Integrating paper and digital media to support co-located group meetings.  Retrieved from http://fluid.media.mit.edu/sites/default/files/pap244-haller-CHI.pdf

Stokes, K.  (2012).  Decoding learning:  the proof, promise, and potential of digital education.  Education Journal, (149), 216 – 218.

In June 2014, Zogby Analytics published its 2014 Global Survey of Students. The company polled a total of 20,876 students in 21 countries as part of a survey conducted for Laureate Education, Inc., which is the leading global network of higher education institutions and includes more than 75 institutions worldwide in 29 countries.

Most of the respondents were members of the Millennial generation, characterized as being “tech-savvy” multitasking experts who rely on social networking services and have a broad global outlook that includes politically progressive views and high expectations for the future.

The results of the survey indicated that the students envision a university of the future that has four salient characteristics:

Accessible   Almost half of the students surveyed (43%) believe that the university of future will:

• offer free online content for most courses
• maintain free online libraries containing books, course materials, and references for students to use (68%)
• include social media platforms that students use to learn and teach other students (59%)

Flexible  Over half (52%) of the students surveyed believe that courses offered by the university of the future will:

• be open 24/7 all day and night
• offer open-ended scheduling so students can establish their timeframe preferences (44%)
• issue specialized certifications over the course of the students’ academic career, allowing students to set their own pace rather than graduating within 2 – 4 year time spans

Innovative  More than half (54%) expect that the university of the future will:

• place more emphasis on innovative approaches that stress increased collaboration among students through group projects
• offer personalized and tutorial instruction online

Job-Focused   Sixty-one percent believed that the university of the future will:

• enhance training for jobs through courses designed by industry experts
• offer courses that will be in multiple languages (64%)
• teach career-oriented skills in addition to subject matter courses

A limited job market has forced students in the West into what has been termed a “gig economy” (O’Neil, 2014, p. A1) in which money is earned through gigs and short-term projects rather than through long-term careers. As a result, the traditional goal of obtaining a degree has shifted in favor of lifelong learning.  In a recent blog post, Richardson (2014, September 10) cited  a Harvard Business School survey of businesses in which almost half of the firms surveyed reported that they “prefer to invest in new technology to perform work rather than hire or retain employees” (para 2).  Further, almost half of the firms also reported that they “prefer to rely on vendors that can be outsourced rather than hire additional employees” (para 3).

Recommendations:

1. As part of their long-term strategy, universities need to consider career-oriented certificate programs, refresher courses, and online mentoring that would be geared to students’ schedules.
2. Universities would benefit from establishing online training programs in affiliation with businesses and entrepreneurs – the “job creators and enablers” (p. 4) of the future
   

   ---

   In her TED talk, Daphne Koller (2012) maintains that universities could benefit from offering free online courses as a means of gaining more insight about how people learn.

References

Koller, D. (2012, August 1). What we’re learning from online education. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6FvJ6jMGHU

O’Neil, L. (2014, August 31).  Surviving the gig economy.  The Boston Globe, p. A1.  Retrieved from  http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/30/surviving-gig-economy/kNnzDGxgu7nvju8JhdAKVN/story.html

Richardson, W. (2014, September 10). The ‘coming gig economy’ is already here [Web blog post]. Retrieved from http://willrichardson.com/?wref=bif

Zogby, J. & Zogby, J. (2014). 2014 global survey of students. Retrieved from http://www.laureate.net/~/media/Files/LGG/Documents/About/Zogby%20Executive%20Summary.ashx

In “Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction,” The Fordham Institute (2011) presented a policy statement regarding how technology will impact the teaching profession.  In the digital age, effective teachers will be those who are capable of leveraging technology to produce outstanding learning outcomes among massive numbers of students.  As a result of this transformation, a hierarchy will emerge, and the nation will require fewer teachers.  Effective teachers  will be retained through increased pay and career opportunities.  Average teachers will be relieved of duties involving “complex tasks” (p. 2) and will be used to personalize instruction to students in traditional classrooms.  Their working hours will be reduced, along with pay.  Ineffective teachers will work as tutors, monitor online learning labs, or be replaced by candidates who are more qualified.  Teacher training programs will appeal to “digital natives” (p. 7), those who have grown up using digital tools, as opposed to “digital immigrants” (p. 7),  those who were not born into the digital age but who adapted to and sometimes adopted technology (Prensky, 2001).  Great teachers will become “media-genic super-instructors” who reach “boundless number of students” (p. 5).

What’s wrong with this picture? 

Any number of things, as pointed out by Luis A. Huerta in an article entitled “Review of Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction” (2012).   The Fordham Institute report lacks empirical research evidence to support its assertion that the digital technologies will improve education.  According to Huerta, it presents a utopian vision that is untenable in guiding future policy and practice.  Although teachers do need to “harness technology to optimize learning” (Derbel, 2013, p. 94), the process will likely unfold gradually in slow pedagogical transitions.  While teachers may not enthusiastically embrace digital tools, as depicted in The Fordham Institute report, online roles will certainly encompass more complex tasks.  Derbel (2013) identified three roles that will need to be adopted:  an instructional design role, a managerial role, and a social role that includes humanistic teaching that draws on best practices in face-to-face instruction.  Effective instructors will therefore require a mixture of skills in order to facilitate and mediate within online communities in the future.

Recommendation:  Take “Contemporary Teaching and Learning Concepts,” offered in the DHSc program at A.T. Still University, to find out more about distance education.

References

Derbel, F. (2013). Facilitation of learning in electronic environments: Reconfiguring the teacher’s role. Proceedings of The International Conference On E-Learning, 94-100.

Hassel, B. C., & Hassel, E. A.  (2011).  Teachers in the age of digital instruction.  Thomas B. Fordham Institute.  Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/20111116_TeachersintheAgeofDigitalInstruction_7.pdf

Huerta, L. A.  (2012).  Review of ‘teachers in the age of digital instruction’. National Education Policy Center.  Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530732.pdf

Prensky, M.  (2001).  Digital natives, digital immigrants.  On the Horizon, 9(5), 1 – 6.